Those 'Tolerant' Muslims

There is much angst and whining in these United States over the recent Arizona law that (gasp!) actually required state officials to enforce already-existing national immigration law. The open-borders lobby is insistent that enforcing existing law is intolerant and racist.

So I'm sure that the same grievance-mongers who are so upset about Arizona's law will be quick to take offense at the restrictions Dubai (and most other Muslim countries) place on visitors. According to a story in the United Kingdom's Daily Mail website, these restrictions include the following:

• Alcohol is only allowed in licensed restaurants, pubs, clubs, private venues. And to drink at home, you must have a special alcohol licence. Alcohol can only be consumed by over 21s.


• Drugs are strictly forbidden, and even having a residual amount in your bag or on clothing could result in a four-year jail sentence. Even if you are importing prescription drugs you may need to get permission from the UAE authorities first.


• Sex outside of marriage is illegal and sharing a hotel room could land you in a police cell.


• Holding hands is tolerated if you are married, but kissing and hugging is considered an offence against public decency.


• Dancing is only allowed in the privacy of your home or at licensed clubs. Dancing in public is classed as indecent and provocative.


• Offensive language, spitting and aggressive behaviour (including hand gestures) is though to be unacceptable. British offenders have been known to receive a six-month jail sentence for such an act and some have been deported.


• Drink-driving is illegal and the UAE has a ZERO-tolerance policy. Even having the smallest amount of alcohol in your system is banned. Tailgating, speeding, racing, lane jumping, or using a mobile phone while driving are also against the law.


• Addressing women in public, or taking their photo without permission is strictly frowned upon and it is forbidden to take pictures of government buildings.

So to recap. Enforcing existing immigration law in the United States is racist. But it is perfectly OK for foreign countries to place far more restrictive limits on visitors. As an aside, how does Mexico treat visitors? I think we all know the answer to that - they are famous for their shakedown tactics and the corruption and arrogance toward foreigners are well-documented. I'll take all this outrage over the Arizona law with more than a grain of salt when and if they adopt open-borders policies in their own country. And when the professional open-borders lobby targets countries other than the United States.

Immigration Thoughts

It seems that the Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration before it, prefers to allow anyone who can sneak illegally across the border to remain free to enjoy the fruits of their ill-gotten rewards. However, as highlighted by Mickey Kaus, there IS a solution, and surprisingly, it was identified by the Jordan Commission, a bi-partisan group initially formed by President George H.W. Bush and continued by President Clinton. This group, headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, consisted of five Democrats and four Republicans. However, their recommendations were almost entirely unanimous. These recommendations consisted of the following:

1. Eliminate the diversity category (the green card lottery).
2. Eliminate the category for unskilled workers to come to the U.S.
3. Cut down or eliminate the extended family- restrict immigration to the nuclear family only.
4. Reduce total admissions to approximately 550,000 per year.
5. Enhance border management to reduce the number of illegals who can enter the United States.
6. Improve enforcement at worksites to catch illegals and punish employers who use illegal aliens.
7. Speedy removal of any illegals caught.
8. Total opposition to any new amnesty or guest-worker program.

Taken together, these recommendations can be boiled down to a succinct statement, as articulated by Vernon Briggs, the author of a paper on the Commission.

...people who should get in do get in; people who
should not get in are kept out; and people who are judged deportable are required to leave.

The complete reports of the Commission on Immigration Reform can be found at the website of the University of Texas. Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.

Whose Country is it Anyway?

That is the question after a group of illegal aliens sued a US citizen for 32 million dollars in federal court. The defendant is an Arizona rancher who is trying to prevent said illegals from destroying his property. According to a report in the Washington Times online newspaper, the illegals filed suit against Arizona resident and US citizen Roger Barnett " for violating their civil rights".

The Washington Times says that,

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

I'm not sure which part of this story is more outrageous- that a group of people who are deliberately breaking laws and destroying someone else' property have the gall to actually sue a citizen of that country who is merely trying to protect his property, or that the US courts are so skewed that they would allow a group of self-admitted criminals to sue someone who was attempting to enforce the law. And of course, the fact that the government admits that Mr. Barnett's ranch is a 'known crossing point' for illegals is aggravating as well. If so, why can't the government actually put some effort into enforcing the laws on the books? Why does Mr. Barnett have to do this himself- last time I checked, the government's primary responsibility was to protect its citizens against hostile invasions- and the influx of illegals from the South is certainly a hostile invasion. These people have no respect for our culture, our laws or our way of life- they just want as much of our money as they can grab, and their government is a willing conspirator in this, since the government cannot or will not actually do anything to improve Mexico.

It is time and past time for our government to enforce border security. And yes, that does include protecting and aiding US citizens who are trying to protect their property from the floods of illegals who come into the United States every year. A man's home is his castle, but while the government feels no constraints in zealously checking if a homeowner is smoking at home (and then fining him if he does), they become suddenly listless in actually helping said homeowner protect his property from a hostile invasion.

I cannot imagine that our courts will rule against the illegals, but it would be nice if once in while, these folks were informed that the only thing they can expect from our courts is a long prison sentence and a heavy fine. Suing a US citizen for enforcing US law should have been laughed out of court- only our open-borders judges don't seem to understand that illegal means illegal.

Huck On Immigration

According to a story in the Waashington Times today, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is ready to fight the 'anchor baby' provision that allows illegal immigrants access to US benefits. The Times reports,

Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens, according to his top immigration surrogate — a radical step no other major presidential candidate has embraced.

Mr. Huckabee, who won last week's Republican Iowa caucuses, promised Minuteman Project founder James Gilchrist that he would force a test case to the Supreme Court to challenge birthright citizenship, and would push Congress to pass a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to remove any doubt.

Although I remain lukewarm at best on Huckabee as a candidate, due mainly to his positions on foreign policy, I am hugely in favor of this idea. The idea that American citizenship is a privilege, not a right, is long-overdue, as is meaningful reform of the 'anchor baby' loophole. If someone is here illegally, then their children should have absolutely no rights to American citizenship. The same is true for diplomats and other foreign appointees.

I predict that this will be roundly criticized by the open borders lobby and their many enablers in the Press, but this is one act of Huckabee's that I can find nothing but approval for. It is time for the United States to gain control over our citizenship and take the matter out of the hands of activist judges with a political agenda. I do not believe the Founders would have approved of the way that the judiciary has expanded rights for non-Americans at the expense of citizens, and the sooner that this is enacted, the better off the nation as a whole will be.

In the end, United States citizenship is a privilege that must be earned. Only by earning it will foreign nationals appreciate the benefits that this brings and only by ending the anchor baby scam will the United States be able to gain control over who is and who is not made a citizen.

Of course, this is merely a first step. I would also like to see the Immigration Service cleaned up, so that LEGAL immigrants do not have to face the confusing, humiliating and capricious process that they must currently navigate. US immigration should exist to assist legal immigrants who have followed the rules, just as it should offer no help to those who are here illegally. Let's clean up the process to aid those who will be a credit to their adopted country- not the criminals and low-lifes who are here only to take advantage of American generosity.

CNN: OK To Fly Mexican Flag Over US Flag

A Mexican bar owner in Reno Nevada flew the Mexican flag above that of the United States. Only problem is that this is specifically illegal under United States Code Section 7, Title Four, which states,

(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the
same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of
America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains
at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during
church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall
display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or
international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior
prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United
States at any place within the United States or any Territory or
possession thereof: Provided, That nothing in this section shall
make unlawful the continuance of the practice heretofore followed
of displaying the flag of the United Nations in a position of
superior prominence or honor, and other national flags in positions
of equal prominence or honor, with that of the flag of the United
States at the headquarters of the United Nations.

The brazen effrontery of the bar prompted an American veteran to cut down both flags. But when CNN reported on the event, they managed to significantly skew the perception. The CNN report simply states that the veteran was angry that the Mexican flag was placed above that of the US- no mention was made that it was in fact illegal under US law. CNN compounded their offense by showing in their video clip, not the actual words of the relevant US code that outlaws this action, but instead 'flag rules' taken from USHistory.org, thus downplaying the actual offense, by suggesting that athe law is in fact merely recommended behavior.

As in so much relating to the illegal alien lobby, apprently it is OK with CNN for immigrants to disrespect and/or disobey the laws of our country, but let one American try to react, and they scream bloody murder. Balance? What balance? Cross-posted on NewsBusters.

AP: La Raza Is Civil Rights; Minutemen Are Extremist

Can the Associated Press distinguish between racial supremacy groups and civil rights groups? Apparently not. AP writer Maria Sudekum Fisher covers the appointment of 73 year old Frances Semler to Kansas City's parks board, which Fisher opposes because Semler is a member of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps. As Fisher writes,

But Frances B. Semler's appointment could now cost the city millions of dollars because she is a member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a group that advocates vigilante patrolling of the Mexican border and reports illegal immigrants to authorities. Her membership has drawn sharp criticism from the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Hispanic advocacy group, and the NAACP. Both groups are threatening to show their displeasure by canceling conventions scheduled to be held in Kansas City. "We see the Minutemen as an extremist group that espouses hate and vigilanteism and some violence," said Janet Murguia, president of NCLR. "A member of such a group, no matter how upstanding in other ways, should have no place representing Kansas City."

Although Fisher herself admits that the Minutemen are merely trying to assist in enforcing the United States laws, no counter argument is provided from anyone associated with the Minutemen except Semler, who is allowed merely to respond that

Semler, who said she will not resign, calls the threats from the civil rights groups "the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard." She said she joined the Minutemen because of the government's failure to enforce immigration laws. Minutemen members "sit on lawn chairs with binoculars and a can of Coke or something and watch to see if anyone is coming across" the border, Semler said. "I'm not even sure if they're armed, but there might be cases if a person has a legal right to carry a gun."

So Fisher refers to La Raza- an organization analogous to the Ku Klux Klan in that it promotes the advancement of one race over another- as a civil rights group, but allows La Raza to frame the Minutemen as an 'extremist group'. Since Fisher apparently cannot be bothered to perform any real research, I shall assist her.

La Raza is a Spanish word meaning 'The Race'. The National Council of La Raza is a racially-based organization designed to assist and promote Latino interests. It is opposed to all efforts by the United States to enforce it's own immigration laws, and often files legal challenges when communities attempt to evict the illegal aliens in their midst. As the NCLR says on its web site,

NCLR supports comprehensive immigration reform that includes the following principles: 1) a path to citizenship for the current undocumented population; 2) the creation of new legal channels for future immigrant workers; 3) a reduction of family immigration backlogs; and 4) the protection of civil rights and civil liberties. By legalizing immigrants who live, work, and contribute to life in the U.S., the U.S. could deal fairly with hardworking people who have responded to an economic reality ignored by the law. At the same time, the U.S. can become more secure by enforcing the new law and by allowing undocumented immigrants to come out of the shadows and participate fully in their communities.

NCLR also espouses drivers licenses for illegal immigrats and in general is an organization designed to assist illegals in any way possible.

By contrast the Minutemen are an organization set up to assist in enforcing U.S. law. As their website mission statement says,

To see the borders and coastal boundaries of the United States secured against the unlawful and unauthorized entry of all individuals, contraband, and foreign military. We will employ all means of civil protest, demonstration, and political lobbying to accomplish this goal.

Minutemen often patrol the border to keep watch for illegal crossings, but as they state on their website,

"Supported by a new and expanded national support team, The Minuteman Corps will observe and report suspected illegal border crossings to the proper authorities. As always, they will maintain a "no contact" policy with the humanitarian exception of providing emergency water to those illegal aliens found in distress in the wilderness.

So let's recap- an organization that promotes enforcing existing law and tries to secure our borders using civil protest, lobbying and demonstration and which works closely with law enforcement versus an organization that wants all current illegals to be made citizens, opposes border enforcement, opposes allowing cities and towns to determine if illegals are good for them. Yet Fisher allows La Raza to call the Minutement extreme, while not allowing any response, save a vague comment from Semler. Either Fisher is completely naive, or she is pushing an agenda. Based on her article, I would have to say the latter. Hat tip to NewsBusters reader Rick Sander. Cross-posted on StoneHeads.

UPDATE: Using the Ku Klux Klan as an analogy to La Raza was inappropriate, for which I apologize. As I was reminded by Tim Graham, the KKK's record of violence is not something that La Raza has emulated. However, as I was considering that, it occurred to me that I cannot think of a truly analogous group that advocates Caucasian racial preference as the NAACP does for blacks and La Raza and MeCHA do for Hispanics. If anyone can come up with a similar organization to La Raza on the Caucasian side of the aisle, please let me know.

San Francisco Sanctuary 2.0

San Francisco is one of the worst offenders regarding illegal immigration. Not content with refusing to obey laws with which they disagree, San Francisco actively encourages illegal aliens to come to their city and prohibits any city agency- including the police- from assisting the federal government in deporting these criminals.

Now comes the news that San Franscisco wants to take the next step- providing these illegals with formal idenitification cards so as to allow them access to services that they have no right to. According to the SFGate online magazine, one of San Francisco's supervisors is writing a law to create a city ID card especially for illegals. However, what is worse, he is pressuring financial institutions to accept it. As SFGate writes,

San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano is drafting legislation to create a city identification card for immigrants unable to get traditional ID cards, a move likely to anger advocates of tougher immigration enforcement.
The cards would be accepted by all city agencies and organizations that receive city funding. Ammiano plans to introduce the legislation within a couple of weeks. He also is trying to persuade financial institutions to allow residents to use the cards to open accounts.
"There is a large community who contribute, and there are not a lot of safeguards around their (immigration) status, their piece of mind and their ability to participate," Ammiano said, adding that the card would be available to all people living in San Francisco regardless of their immigration status.

This is a bad idea on so many fronts I hardly know where to start. Firstly, illegal aliens are, by definition, illegal. Why is the City of San Francisco so eager to assist foreign nationals brak United States law? Do these ignorant fools in the city council not understand that if one does not like a law, then one changes it. However, one does not have the right to selectively disobey laws simpply because one does not like them.

Secondly, this is a problem on legal grounds. Courts have thrown out laws by cities trying to help enforce the government's illegal alien enforcement. How can a court allow San Fracnisco's blantant attempt to create their own immigration policy? If a city cannot enforce immigration laws, how can a city be allowed to create a new form of ID that floutss immigration law?

This also creates a problem for the 'financial institutions' Supervisor Ammiano is pressuring. They are, or should be, under pressure from the federal government NOT to accept this kind of identification- the Mexican matricular card was bad enough. If San Francisco starts pressuring them to accept the new illegal ID card, then banks have to choose which laws to obey- federal or state.

San Francisco and other 'sanctuary cities' need to be firmly reined in. No matter if they are elected or not, Supervisor Ammiano and his fellows on the SF City Council are conspiriing to break federal law. They can and should be arrested and tried on those charges. In addition, all federal funding should be yanked from the city until the council comes to its senses. Unfortunately, we will probably have to wait for a new President in order for any of this to occur. The Bush Administration, stalwart though it has been in conducting the war against imperialist Islam, has been less than active regarding the invasion of illegals coming across the sourthern border.

Deported Illegal Asks to Return- As Ambassador

Apparently flagrantly breaking the laws of the United States is not enough for some illegal aliens- they need to flaunt their breaking in the faces of law-abiding Amerticans and legal immigrants. According to the International Herald-Tribune, the Mexican illegal deported last week, Eliana Arellano, has asked Meixcan President Felipe Calderon for a diplomatic visa so she can return to the United States as a 'peace and goodwill ambassador'.

As reported by the International Herald-Tribune,

"What I'm asking for is a diplomatic visa so that I can be an ambassador for peace and justice because I'm not a terrorist and the United States can't continue treating undocumented migrants as terrorists," Arellano told reporters after meeting with President Felipe Calderon at the presidential residence, Los Pinos.

A peace and goodwill ambassador? What kind of peace and goodwill would a self-confessed illegal alien who has openly showed she has no concern for the laws passsed by American citizens bring to this country? What she wants, of course, is to be allowed to legally come back to this country and be reunited with her sson, who is a citizen due to the disastrously thought-out 'baby-anchor' provision for citizenship. Since Ms. Arellano does not want to take her son back to his real country (that would be Mexico), she is trying once again to game the system. As for her comments about "treating undocumneted migrants as terrorissts", this is easily dismissed. Arellano is not being treated as a terroris- she is being treated as what she is- an illegal alien. Terrorists end up in Guantanamo Bay or dead. No one has mistreated or abused Arellanos in any way. Remember, Ms. Arellano, you knowlingly and willingly broke the law of the United States. If all you wanted was to be with your son, you can legally take him back to Mexico with you. he could be on the next plane and no one will stop you. It is your desire to get unearned privileges that brought you to this pass.

I have some suggestions for Arellano and all her enablers in the illegal-alien business. The United States is a sovereign country and as such has the right to determine who can and shouldd be granted entry. Mexicans and other illegals mostly cannot justly claim political persecctuion. if conditions in their home countries are bad, then it is their responsibility to work to make those conditions better. it is not the United States' responsibility to provide a free living and an equally free stress-relief valve to the corrupt governments of the nations from which these illegals come. And I find the hypocrisy of all of the countries involved staggering. None of these countries- not Mexico, not China and not any other South American country- provides any asssistance to illegals found within their own borders. In fact, anyone caught illegally in Mexico, to use merely one example, is summarily deported after a term in jail. Why then do these countries seem to think that we should not be allowed to police our own borders?

As for the United States Congress- think about your law-abiding, legal constitutents before getting caught up in the illegal-alien hype. There are many deserving LEGAL aliens waiting for the DHS to process their applications. Let's work on making the process better for those who actually desire to follow our rules and who have demonstrated that they respect the culture into which they desire to come. The ccurrent process for legally becoming a green-card holder is hopelessly broken, and many of the srtaff at the former Immigration and Naturalization Service are both rude and incompetent. Before we start letting illegals gain privileges that citizens and leegal alienss cannot access, let's help those who would be worthwilfe additions to our country- not those who have already demonstrated that they have no respect for our culture or our laws.

If President Calderon is foolish enough to give Arellano a diplomatic visa, I hope the United States uses its prerogative to deny her entry to this country. She is a convicted criminal, and we are under no obligation to allow self-confessed criminals back into our country- no matter how much they and their home government may desire to embarrass us.

(Illegal) Immigration Issues

An example of all that is wrong with our immigration system was on display today as 32 year old illegal alien Elvira Arellano was arrested in Los Angeles and processed for deportation. All while Arellano's son, a legal US resident, watched. This is wrong on so many levels that I hardly know where to begin.

First, how did Arellano's son gain legal US residency, when his mother arrived illegally? Because anyone born in the U.S automatically is a citizen, regardless of how they got here. This needs to change, so as to eliminate the "anchor babies" so many illegals depend on to muddy the waters of their own illegal actions.

Second, Arellano herself is a multiple offender. She has already been deported once, and has returned anyway. She has been staying in a church in Chicago in defiance of a deportation order for the past seven months. Why did the government not obtain a search warrant and seize her from her illegal sanctuary? Churches have no legal basis to defy the federal government, especially in cases like this, where there is no question of the woman being mistreated.

But most of all, this is an example of how badly our immigration process is broken. Illegal aliens like this woman push themselves in front of those who have done the process legally, and that is a Bad Thing. Why should we lavish any pity on Arellanes and her illegal cohorts when far more qualified and law-abiding people wait on the Department of Homeland Security capricious and time-consuming process for legal admittance to this country?

It's time for this country to get serious. Remove the anchor baby process first. Anyone born here must be of at least one American citizen parent, and if the baby is born to a foreign parent, they must apply for citizenship- it should not be automatic. Second, we need to stop this invasion of illegals from our southern border, no matter how desperately the corrupt government in Mexico desires this state of affairs to continue. But most of all, we need to convince our representatives in Washington of our seriousness. And if they cannot or will not listen, maybe it's time to send a few of them home for good.

Illegal Visits

Although the U.S. federal government doesn't seem to understand the idea that a sovereign state has a right to decide who comes to live within its borders, Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona doesn't seem to have any problem understanding the idea. Already well-known for some of his unique ideas on dispensing justice, the sheriff announced today that illegal aliens are not allowed to visit relatives incarcerated in his jail.

The sheriff intends to run background checks on every visitor, and all visitors will have to prove their identity. Should an illegal try to visit, it appears that they may just wind up inside with the one they were visiting. The sheriff shrugs off criticism, saying simply, "I run the jail. I decide who goes in there."

I'm sure that the illegal-alien industry will scream bloody murder, but I can find nothing but approval for the sheriff's actions. Illegal aliens, by definition, are illegal. They are breaking the laws of the United States, and I personally do not understand why we should be making any effort whatsoever to pander to them. They should have access to no services in this country. They should have no ability to work in their native language and they shoud definitely not have access to US courts. Illegal aliens should be arrested and sent home whenever and wherever they are found.

Why can't Congress understand this simple fact? Illegals are illegal.

The Judges Strike Back

It would seem to most people that they have the right to decide who can live in their town, and if there are illegal aliens hiding, then the townsfolk should be able to tell their police to round them up and hand them over to the federal government for removal. Unfortunately, it seems that judges either have no common sense or are too blinded by their desire to destroy the United States and turn it into Mexico, Junior.

Today, federal judge James Munley struck down Hazelton, Pennsyvania's anti-illegal alien law on the ground that it infringed on teh federal government's prerogatives.

This is truly sickening. Judges have no problem letting the federal government walk all over the rights of the States and the People, but when municipalities try to help out (especially when the Fes are lying down on the job as they are in this issue) then judges have no problem telling the municipalities that they cannot step in. And what was this judge thinking? Municipalities have a perfect right to police themselves, so this is not in the slightest infringement- it is helping out. Maybe Judge Munley simply doesn't want to give up his Mexican housekeeper or his garden boys?

It is time that municipaliites rise up and demand action. Sovereign nations have a perfect right to protect their broders, and towns and locals have a right to determine who can enter. These illegals are, well, illegal. What doesn't Munley understand about this?

This decision is an embarrassment. However, this will almost certainly end up before the Supreme Court, in the end, though I think it is time that Congress removes the issue of rights for illegals from the purvey of the federal judiciary. They have proved they cannot be trusted, either on POW or on illegal alien issues.

...and STAY Dead!

Teddy Kennedy's hopes for an influx of new Democratic voters and President Bush's hopes of gaining a major domestic legislative legacy came crashing down in the United States Senate today. As the Associated Press sadly reports,

President Bush's immigration plan to legalize as many as 12 million unlawful immigrants while fortifying the border collapsed in the Senate on Thursday, crushing both parties' hopes of addressing the volatile issue before the 2008 elections.
The Senate vote that drove a stake through the delicate compromise was a stinging setback for Bush, who had made reshaping immigration laws a central element of his domestic agenda. It could carry heavy political consequences for Republicans and Democrats, many of whom were eager to show they could act on a complex issue of great interest to the public.

After the defeat of the bill, President Bush was reported as saying,

"Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people and Congress' failure to act on it is a disappointment," a grim-faced president said after an appearance in Newport, R.I. "A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground. It didn't work."

Actually, Mr. President, if this were about legal immigration, the voters probably wouldn't be nearly so upset. It is the fact that this was a blatant attempt to give the benfits of American citizenship to folks without their earning it that enraged so many Americans. Why is it so hard for Washington to realise the difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration?

While this is a much-needed show of empathy with the concerns of their LEGAL constituents by Senators, I disagree with the A.P.'s analysis that it could have "heavy political consequences for Democrats and Republicans", however. It has been plain throughout that a very large majority of voters in both Democratic and Republican parties was furiously opposed to this shamefully conceived attempt to ramrod millions of new illegals down the throats of American voters who have already been forecd to pay for the many peccadillos of earlier attempts at amnesty.

I think that the Republicans (and Democrats) who so strongly opposed the bill will reap rewards, while the forces of amnesty (excluding the buffoonish Kennedy, who is essentially unbeatable in Massachusetts) may well suffer for their attempt to push this shamnesty past American voters. If I were a supporter of amnesty, I would be hoping that voters forget before I face them again. The House, who would have been most concerned, must have breathed a sigh of relief, as the failure of the Senate to force cloture means the House does not even need to address the issue.

Hopefully this will serve as a lesson that however much illegals lobby Congress, American citizens and legal residents do not like to see criminals granted privileges that they cannot access. And that is what this bill amounted to- an attempt to give Mexican criminals more rights in the United States than Americans. Remember, Congresspeople- it is legal voters who hold your fate in their hands- not illegals from across the border. Next time, maybe you can figure out that simply enforcing existing laws and securing the border must come befroe you attempt to further dilute this great county with an influx of those who neither deserve nor waznt to become American.

States Against Illegals

While Congress tries to figure out how they can pull a boondoggle of an amnesty over the wide-open eyes of American voters, some states have tired of Washington's pandering to illegal aliens at the expense of legal residents and citizens, who are asked to fund these giveaways of privileges to people who have no wish to beecome American- they only want our money while being able to spit on our culture and laws.

One Florida sheriff has found a highly effective way of catching illegals- enforce the laws on the books. According to the Associated Press, Florida Sheriff Frank McKeithen of Panama City has created a task force to enforce "a long-standing Florida law prohibitiing employers from knowingly hiring illegal immigrants". McKeithen's tactics? Simple. Have several uniformed deputies pull up to a construction site and then chase and catch whoever runs. The runners' names are then turned over to the federal immigration authorities. If no one runs, the deputies require the employers to produce proof of their employees' legal residence. Any who cannot prove they are legal are then arrested. And the tactic works. Since the sheriff began enforcing the laws, even the ACLU admits that illegals are leaving Panama City Beach.

This sounds like a brilliant plan- enforce laws already on the books and maybe the illegals will get the message. And so will the employers who are willing to play the game along with them. if you take aways the benefits and jobs that illegals are not entitled to anyway, you will eventually convince them that there is no benefit in breaking the laws to come here. Now all we have to do is somehow convince our pandering Congress and President that laws are to be enforced, and before they give away any more of our privileges to people who have not earned them, maybe they ought to try doing what they take an oath to do when they take office- enforce the laws and protect Americans, not Mexicans.

俺はアメリカ人 - Ore wa amerikajin

That means "I am an American" in Japanese. And to be an American can mean many things. You could have been born in China, or you could be a third-generation Mexican-American, or your family could date its American presence back to 1620. However, there are certain things that all Americans have historically shared.

A understanding and belief in the God-given rights that underlie the Constitution. A belief in the Christian ideal of charity and personal responsibility. And the English language.

Like it or not, the United States is a country built on English common-law traditions, Protestant Christianity and the English language. And until very recently, immigrants coming to this country understood that they were stepping into a culture built on these principles and that it was their responsibility to adapt and fit in. But in the last fifty years, something has changed. The new immigrants, many off them from south of the border, have decided that they want to change this country into what they are trying to escape. It is OK to build little cultural walls around one's community and never bother to learn the overarching culture. And of course learning English is out of the question. But the saddest part of the new immigration lobby is their habit of demonizing immigrants who have succeeded through their unerstanding of the need to assimilate.

In TownHall.com today, Mary Katherine Ham has a wonderful article discussing three immigrants- Al Pacino, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jessica Alba- who emphasize their American-ness, not their original nationalities. Alba, for example, is quoted as saying,

Alba is my last name and I'm proud of that. But that's it. My grandparents were born in California, the same as my parents, and though I may be proud of my last name, I'm American. Throughout my whole life, I've never felt connected to one particular race or heritage, nor did I feel accepted by any.

...

He tried to forget his Mexican roots, because he never wanted his kids to be made to feel different in America. He and my grandmother didn't speak Spanish to their children. Now, as a third-generation American, I feel as if I have finally cut loose.

Nor should she. She is of a family that correctly understood that to emphasize their Mexican heritage was to damage their descendants' chances of success in their new country. Jessica has succeeded, in part due to her complete acceptance of U.S. culture. In the same vein, the Austrian-born governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger recently told an audience of Hispanics,

"You've got to turn off the Spanish television set" and avoid Spanish-language television, books and newspapers, the Republican governor said Wednesday night…

"You're just forced to speak English, and that just makes you learn the language faster," Schwarzenegger said.

"I know this sounds odd and this is the politically incorrect thing to say, and I'm going to get myself in trouble," he said, noting that he rarely spoke German and was forced to learn English when he emigrated from Austria.

And yet Schwarzenegger succeeded in Hollywood despite his originally impenetrable accent. He made himself into a passably good actor, and has now risen to be governor of California by downplaying his roots and working very hard to master English and assimilate into American culture and society.

Al Pacino also looks at immigration differently from the mainstream lobby. He said recently,

Explain to me what Italian-American culture is. We've been here 100 years. Isn't Italian-American culture American culture? That's because we're so diverse, in terms of intermarriage. Most everybody who's Italian is half Italian. Except me. I'm all Italian. I'm mostly Sicilian, and I have a little bit of Neapolitan in me. You get your full dose with me.

Pacino also has it right. Immigrants who come to American wanting to become Americans usually end up contributing to the American culture. Chinese, Italians, English, Irish, Japanese, and many other races have contributed. But most of these groups have also become Americanized, assimilating into the culture. And American culture, unlike Chinese or Japanese or Mexican culture is very welcoming as a rule. Most Americans don't really care where you're from if you genuinely want to be an American we'll usually help you make it. Try becoming an accepted member of society in Asia if you were not born Asian. Try being accepted in Muslim territory if you were born Christian.

But the immigration lobby (who seems not to care for LEGAL immigrants, only illegal ones), has a whole different take on the issue. For them, if an immigrant wants to assimilate, it is betrayal. As Alex Nogales said in response to Schwarzengger's talk about assimilating, "I'm sitting shaking my head not believing that someone would be so naive and out of it that he would say something like that,".

It is Nogales who is naive, unless he is simply focused on destroying the United States by inundating it with Mexican illegals. When immigrants move to someone else's country, they must assimilate. It is not Americans' responsibility to change to fit the immigrant; it is the immigrants' job to become American. When I lived in Japan, it was always I who was expected to adapt in order to fit in. This is only right- it is not my country. But in America, we have the same right to expect immigrants to become Americans- not the other way around. And it is sad that so many of our elected leaders simply do not understand this.

It Lives!

Just as Michelle Malkin and other commentators warned, the illegal alien amnesty has arisen from the grave. The Houston Chronicle reported this morning that

"Senate leaders, under intense pressure from immigrant-rights groups, the business sector and the White House, agreed Thursday on a plan to revive an immigration bill sidetracked last week by partisan clashes and conservative opposition.

...

The move to offer the downpayment on border and interior enforcement marks an attempt to quell a revolt by Americans bombarding senators with angry phone calls, e-mails and faxes. Their message: We've got no faith that you'll actually enforce the law or increase border security.

Well, yes, that is precisely the point. Every time our elected representatives in Washington do something about the "immigration problem" it seems they only try to make it easier for undesirable illegal aliens to get citizenship. No wonder that the American people do not trust Congress on this issue, considering how many times we have been told that enforcement will happen, yet somehow, as Malkin has documented, illegal aliens still are able to game the system to get multiple chances- something not even US citizens receive from the courts. Is US citizenship something that ought to be given away to anyone who thinks they deserve it?

It seems to me that we need to make it much more of a privilege. We already make those who are willing to come here legally go through a very painful process. What exactly is the rationale in putting illegal aliens, who by definition have already broken our laws, before those who have patiently stood in line? Legal immigrants are very welcome, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for illegal aliens. Their countries certainly do not extend the privileges they are asking for to illegal aliens back home. Why should we extend rights to people who have not done anything to earn them, and who have shown their contempt for our laws by their very behavior in coming here illegally?

Contact your representative via the hotline number listed below:
1-800-417-7666

Immigration and Approval

The immigration shamnesty bill is apparently not dead. that is a disappointment. However, there is hope. Rasmussen polls reported today that support for the bill is far greater amongst Congress than American voters.

Rasmussen says on their website,

Just 20% of American voters want Congress to try and pass the immigration reform bill that failed in the Senate last week.

...

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.

In a related study, Rasmussen found that President Bush's approvals dipped to 33 percent when immigration is the major topic. However, interestingly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's favorable rating is merely half of that, coming in at a measly 19 percent.

This should tell Congress that it might be better to wait and put together something that the public approves of, as opposed to trying to please the illegal alien lobby. It would help, of course, if our elected officials would actually realize that illegals have no right to be in this country and that there are many well-qualified, would-be legal immigrants who have patiently waited and done things thAT right way that should be given the privilege of US residence before a bunch of uneducated criminals.

Don't let this monstrosity become law. Contact your congressman and let him or her know your displeasure with this bill now. As Michelle Malkin has tirelessly documented, the current state of affairs is to game the system to let the illegal win. This is reprehensible. But the only way to kill this thing is to stay vigilant. And step one is to kill this immigration bill. Don't forget to ask your elected officials, "What part of "illegal" do you fail to understand?"

Border Corruption

It appears the corruption associated with open borders has even ensnared U.S National Guardsmen. The Star-Telegram reported that three National Guardsmen were arrested for running an illegal-alien smuggling ring in Texas' Tamant County. And at least one of them, Jose Torres, was in uniform at the time he was arrested. The paper reported that,

A Border Patrol agent found 24 illegal immigrants inside a van Torres was driving along Interstate 35 near Cotulla, Texas, about 68 miles north of the border, prosecutors said. Torres was in uniform at the time of his arrest Thursday.

This is why we need to shut off the border. It's time to put the regular Army down there and remove the temptations for coyoptes and illegals to try to game the system. Build a real wall, fine illegals caught here with stiff penalties and hit employers with crippling fines and prison sentences if necessary. For the illegal aliens themselves, make it soe that if they are caught, any and all assets acquired in this country will be immediately confiscated, and seize all wages earned. In addition, Mexico shoudl be charged the fees associated with the repatriation of illegal aliens.

It is high time that we cease this charade, and shut down the border. Until we do that, any talk of "homeland security" is simply that- talk.

Shamnesty Tabled

Excellent News! The attempt by our elected representatives in the Congress to legalize a massive invasion of illegal aliens has been temporarily derailed. Throughout this brazen attempt to push through a massive amnesty, the blogosphere has been doing a far better job of coverage than the so-called professionals in the MSM. Michelle Malkin, Captain Ed and the Power Line crew have all done outstanding work on the story. The MSM prefers to merely parrot the talking points of the illegal alien lobby than actually investigate the issues.

However, even the Associated Press has awoken from their propagandistic stupor long enough to recognize that the shamnesty is at least temporarily dead. Unfortunately, as the AP writers mention,

The White House argued the setback was not fatal for Bush's top domestic priority and urged Reid to allow the bill to continue to be debated and eventually receive a vote.

This is all too possible. As Michelle Malkin warned,

This is neither the beginning nor the end of the immigration debate. The White House is still trying to push shamnesty through. I predicted a while ago that after the massive amnesty package failed, Congress would break off chunks of the bill and try and pass it piecemeal. I expect that to happen here, as it has repeatedly in the past.

Malkin's word "vigilance" absolutely applies. This Congress and White House has proved on this issue that they care more for illegal aliens than for the law-abiding LEGAL immigrants who wait sometimes for years to gain legal entrance. And they completely disregarded the tax-paying citizens of this country, who were decidedly against this travesty. We must make certain that our representatives know our anger and that their continued attempts to give amnesty to illegal aliens will cost them the next time they want us to re-elect them. Maybe then they will listen harder to their constituents than to Mexico's version of the Ku Klux Klan- also known as La Raza.

More on Amnesty

Captain Ed Morrissey posted a thoughtful critique of the arguments against the new amnesty agreement reached by the Senate. While I will not recap it in its entirety, I would like to comment on the agreement.

Captain Ed wrote:

There are 12 million illegals in the US. Let me explain how difficult that would be. In the first place, the ICE has to find them, usually where they work. They then have to build a probable cause for a raid and search warrants (unless we want to toss out the 4th Amendment). That takes quite a bit of time; it might take months to build that kind of a case against an employer, but at least it will take a few weeks. Then they raid the shop, arrest everyone without proper identification, and start the deportation process -- which requires a hearing for each person in court to determine their status. During that period, we have to house and feed them.

...

If we really want to solve the porous border and the immigration issue, then we need to start somewhere to stop the problem from getting worse first. This bill is not perfection by any means -- but it is a reasonable starting point.

Captain Ed has a point about the difficulty of deporting 12 million illegal aliens. However, if we simply enforced the laws already on the books- especially as regards employers, we can put the pinch on the companies who employ illegal aliens to the point where it is extremely difficult for them to find work. If we coupled that with a crackdown on illegals' access to Social Security, public education, the courts and healthcare, we could make things very uncomfortable for them. Would they leave? Possibly not, but if we force them to face life without all the perks they seem to feel entitled to (and which their home country certainly would not give to any illegal there), some of them might rethink the benefits of being in the United States.

That being said, I doubt we will do better than this bill in the current political culture. Republicans have no stomach for actually listenting to their legal constituents- they are too worried about the Azatlan-promoting activists with whom the foolish media are so in love. And Democrats see the illegals as a vast new Democratic constituency, so they will certainly not put any obstacles in front of this rush to amnesty.

The only thing we can do is to put pressure on our elected representatives to enforce the border security provisions in this bill, and make enforcement more than just a word thrown around by clueless politicians. We need a strong fence, a robust deportation effort, a campaign by the federal government to take cities like San Francisco who think federal law is made to be broken to court with severe financial penalties, a crackdown in illegal alien employers, a Congressional law depriving illegals of standing in US courts and above all, we need the southern border locked down.

Hat tip to Captain Ed Morrissey.

Immigration Analysis

It has been obvious since the Democrats took control of Congress in the midterm elections that we would see some form of amnesty for the illegal aliens in this country. The only question was to what extent the government would cave to the illegal alien lobby.

We now have our answer. However, one can take either a half-empty or half-full perspective on the resulting bill in the Senate. Michelle Malkin calls it amnesty and condemns the Senate Republicans. Malkin has been on this story for a long time, and she is quite accurate in her characterization. This looks, smells and sounds like amnesty.

However, Captain Ed Morrissey takes a more positive view of the Senate compromise, noting that

Conservatives don't get everything they want, of course, but we don't control Congress any more, either. While one could argue that no bill beats a bad bill, this compromise does not look all that bad. Its focus on border security and identification of illegals as part of the process of normalization addresses two significant national-security concerns, and it still penalizes illegals -- just not to the extent desired by conservatives.

I agree with Malkin, though Captain Ed makes a good point in that elections do have consequences and this is better than the disastrous bill that McCain tried to force through before the elections. I still have to ask the Congress though- what part of illegal do you fail to understand? These folks are here illegally, and thus, it is certainly not our responsibility to feed them or give them anything at all. Legal immigrants I welcome with open armss. Illegal imigrants should receive jail stays and a trip back home paid for either by themsleves or the Mexican government while being fined of every penny they earned while here illegally.